DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 8/24/2026. Claims 1-13 and 15 are pending in the application. Claims 1-4 have been withdrawn and claims 5-13 and 15 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejection of claims 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
The rejections of claims 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 112 are maintained.
All rejections from the previous office action are maintained.
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds of objection are necessitated by the amendments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 10 recites “wherein the floor care device comprises an air filter, a dust bin, or a shroud for at least partially enclosing the dust bin.” in lines 2-3. Please change “the dust bin” to “a dust bin” in line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part” in claim 5;
“a contamination detector for detecting contamination” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specifically, the following limitations are interpreted as corresponding to the structure cited in the specification and equivalents:
rotation unit, understood to be a motor for rotating a fan or a brush bar, (page 4, para 4);
contamination detector, understood to be an optical sensor, (page 5, para 1).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In amendment filed on 4/24/2026, claim 1 recites “at least one rotatable part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode, and “wherein the at least one rotatable part is a brush bar.” This is supported by the specification (page 5, lns. 8-9) and (page 5, lns. 8-10), wherein the latter citation explicitly states “when the at least one part is a rotatable part, such as a fan or a brush bar, the floor care device may further comprises a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part.”
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one rotatable part is arranged between the at least one light source and the second part.” The specification discloses wherein a dust bin, air filter, or a shroud may be arranged between the at least one light source and the second part (page 5, lns. 1-6) but is silent to their rotation capabilities.
Claims 12-13 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 11 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In amendment filed on 4/24/2026, claim 1, from which claims 7-13 depend on, recites “at least one rotatable part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode, and wherein the at least one rotatable part is a brush bar.” Claims 7-13 recite further embodiments of the at least one rotatable part that are incongruent with the recited structure of a brush bar.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one rotatable part is located between the at least one light source and the second part.” The specification discloses wherein a dust bin, air filter, or a shroud may be arranged between the at least one light source and the second part (page 5, lns. 1-6). However, the specification explicitly states, “when the at least one part is a rotatable part, such as a fan or a brush bar, the floor care device may further comprise a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part [emphasis added]” (page 5, lns. 8-10), implying that the brush bar and fan are rotatable alternatives to a stationary a dust bin, air filter, or shroud that are positioned between the at least one light source the second. Therefore, it is unclear how a brush bar, can be positioned between the at least one light source and the second part if it is rotatable.
Claims 12-13 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 11 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 20090133214 A1), in view of Hirose et al. (JP 2005124861 A) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 7/3/2023) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation), Rodriguez (US 20190247528 A1), and Oinuma (JP 2013172834 A).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo teaches a floor care device configured to operate in a floor care mode and a park mode (Fig. 1, vacuum cleaner 10, [0039], device is understood to be capable of operating in a floor care mode and park mode), the floor care device comprising:
- at least one rotatable part that is susceptible to contamination when the floor care device is used in the floor care mode (Fig. 2, drum brush unit 120 rotates, [0032], [0039-0040]), and wherein the at least one rotatable part is a brush bar (drum brush unit 120 contains brush 122 = understood to be brush bar, [0032])
- a rotation unit for rotating the rotatable part (drum brush unit connect to a driving motor, [0032])
- at least one light source for emitting ultraviolet light (Fig. 3, UV generation unit 150 contains UV lamp 156).
Yoo does not teach wherein the at least one light source is arranged in such a way as to illuminate the at least one [rotatable] part when emitting the light. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with preventing the buildup of contaminants on the drum brush, motivating one towards Hirose. Hirose teaches a vacuum cleaner sterilizing system comprising a rotary brush (Fig. 7, 22) configured to sweep a floor surface (page 4, para 6) and an ultraviolet lamp (Fig. 7, 36) inside the rotary brush that is configured to turn on during vacuum cleaner operation to prevent the propagation of microorganisms on the brush (page 4, para 6-7).
Hirose and Yoo are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to vacuum cleaners. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drum brush as taught by Yoo to include the ultraviolet lamp embedded within the rotary drum brush as taught by Hirose because Hirose teaches the ultraviolet lamp to prevent the propagation of microorganisms on the brush (page 4, para 7) and this involves the combination of elements (drum brush of Yoo and the ultraviolet lamp of Hirose) to yield a predictable result (a sterilizing light source embedded within a drum bursh) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Modified Yoo does not teach wherein the at least one light source is configured to emit light in in a violet portion of the visual spectrum. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with sterilizing the drum brush without exposing a user to harmful UV light, motivating one to turn towards Rodriguez.
Rodriguez teaches a plurality of LED light sources (Fig. 1, 19, 21) for the deactivation of bacteria (abstract) including violet light within the 380-450 nm wavelength range because it is less harmful to humans than ultraviolet light but is still effective for disinfection [0067].
Rodriguez is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the decontamination arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UV generation unit as taught by Yoo to include the violet light source as taught by Rodriguez to simultaneously provide sterilizing radiation while preventing harm to users and this involves the combination of elements (UV generation unit of Modified Yoo and the violet light source of Rodriguez) to yield a predictable result (a rotatable brush connected to a violet light source) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 (I)(G) and 2143(I)(A).
Modified Yoo teaches a microswitch (Yoo, Fig. 5, 160) configured to turn the ultraviolet lamp on or off via a manually depressed button (Yoo, [0037]) but does not teach a floor care controller, operatively coupled to the at least one light source and operative to detect a transition of the floor care device to the park mode and, in response thereto, to execute a decontamination program, the decontamination program including using the at least one light source to illuminate the at least one rotatable part for the decontamination thereof wherein the decontamination program further comprises illuminating the rotatable part during and after rotating the rotatable part. One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with how to automatically activate/deactivate the disinfecting light based on a detected condition, motivating one to turn towards Oinuma.
Oinuma teaches a floor care device configured to operate in a floor care mode and a park mode (abstract) comprising a disinfecting light source (Fig .3, ultraviolet lamp 34) and a floor care controller, operatively coupled to the at least one light source and operative to detect a transition of the floor care device to the park mode and, in response execute a decontamination program, the decontamination program including using the at least one light source to sterilize a target area (control means 37 is a microcomputer connected to setting button 22, UV lamps 34, and a detection sensor 35, to detect and control operation mode of vacuum cleaner. In response, the control means controls the activation/deactivation of UV light exposed to a target area after a “stop” operation = understood to be a “park mode,” page 3, para 1-6).
Oinuma and Modified Yoo are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the vacuum cleaning arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaning system as taught by Modified Yoo with the control means (microcomputer) of Oinuma because Oinuma teaches the control means to be connected to a disinfecting light source and actuate/deactivate light emitted by the light source to a target area in response to a transition of a vacuum cleaner to a park mode (page 3, para 1-6) and this involves the combination of elements (vacuum cleaner of Modified Yoo with the control means of Oinuma) to yield a predictable result (controllable light source that actuates/deactivates a sterilizing light source to a target area in response to the transition of a parked vacuum cleaner) with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Accordingly, Modified Yoo teaches wherein the decontamination program further comprises illuminating the rotatable part during and after rotating the rotatable part (Yoo, drum brush 120 understood to stop rotating when the vacuum cleaner is in a park mode, Oinuma, control means configured to actuate disinfecting light when detecting the vacuum cleaner is in a park mode [page 3, para 1-6] = understood to disinfecting drum brush after it stops rotating).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the at least one light source is configured for emitting light with a wavelength of about 405 nm (Rodriguez, [0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the floor care device comprises a user contact area, specifically designed for being contacted by a user during normal use of the floor care device (Yoo, Fig. 1, user contact area = vacuum cleaner handle).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the floor care device comprises a handle for holding the floor care device during use in the floor care mode (Yoo, Fig. 1, vacuum cleaner has a handle).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the floor care device comprises a button, a knob, a lever or a touch screen provided for user interaction with the floor care device (Yoo, Fig. 3, device includes a button unit 146 that allows a user to interact with floor care device housing [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the floor care device comprises an air filter, a dust bin, or a shroud for at least partially enclosing the dust bin (Yoo, Fig. 1, dust receptacle 25).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Yoo teaches the floor care device as claimed in claim 5, including a control means configured to control disinfection (Oinuma, control means 37 is a microcomputer connected to setting button 22, UV lamps 34, and a detection sensor 35) but does not teach wherein the floor care device further comprises a contamination detector for detecting contamination on a contaminated portion of the at least one rotatable part and wherein the decontamination program comprises selectively illuminating the contaminated portion.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with automatically disinfecting contaminated components on the floor care device without user intervention, motivating one to turn towards Oinuma. Oinuma teaches a floor care device comprises a decontamination sensor configured to determine a contamination level of a target area (Fig. 1, detection sensor 35 configured to determine contamination level of dust collection unit, page 4, para 6) and selectively sterilize the contaminated portion based on the detect contamination data (Oinuma, contamination data used to effectively sterilize dust collection unit, page 5, para 4-5; page 6, para 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control means as taught by Modified Yoo with the detection sensor as taught by Oinuma because Oinuma teaches the detection sensor to determine a contamination level of a target area and selectively decontaminate the target area based on the data (page 4, para 6; page 5, para 4-5; page 6, para 2) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on page 6 of the amendment, filed 8/24/2026 the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the visible light illumination system of Kleine-Dopke and the drum brush of Yoo as doing so would negate Kleine-Doepke intended purpose and would constitute hindsight reasoning with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Hirose et al. (JP 2005124861 A), which was cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 7/3/2023. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 6 of the amendment, filed 8/24/2026 the Applicant argues that the disclosure of Rodriguez is not analogous to the claimed invention or to Yoo as it is not in the vacuum cleaning arts with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Yoo is drawn to the vacuum cleaning arts and the decontamination arts, with the decontamination medium being sterilizing light. Rodriguez is drawn to the visible and UV irradiation decontamination arts. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to turn towards Rodriguez to determine an appropriate wavelength for sterilization while also limiting harmful radiation exposed to a user.
However, the rejection has been withdrawn and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Hirose et al. (JP 2005124861 A), which was cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 7/3/2023. See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on page 7 of the amendment, filed 8/24/2026 the Applicant argues that none of the cited references discloses a decontamination operation in which the rotatable part is illuminated during rotation and continues to be illuminated after rotation with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103
This argument has been fully considered and is unpersuasive. Oinuma teaches the control means to detect and control the operational mode of the vacuum cleaner and control the actuation of the lighting state based on a state of the vacuum cleaner, including actuating after a “stop” operation (i.e., the cessation of an internally rotating part) which is understood to be a “park” mode (page 3, para 1-6). Further, Oinuma also teaches the control of the lighting means to be actuated during the use (i.e., the rotation of an internally rotating part) of the vacuum cleaner (page 5, para 8).
However, the rejection has been withdrawn, and a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Hirose et al. (JP 2005124861 A), which was cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 7/3/2023. See rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090183335 A1 teaches a vacuum accessory tool comprising an illumination element designed to emit visible light at a target surface to illuminate contaminated areas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nebyate Seged whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights